The 2010 Inspectors Report
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT REFERENCE RSAP 10 APPENDIX 6 TO RSAP 5 This is the December 2010 Inspector’s Report on the previous Examination of the Site Allocation Policies and Proposals Map Report to Cumbria County Council Council by Brian Cook BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Date:1st December 2010 PLANNING AND COMPULSORY PURCHASE ACT 2004 SECTION 20 REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION INTO THE SITE ALLOCATIONS POLICIES AND PROPOSALS MAP DEVELOPMENT PLAN DOCUMENT Document submitted for examination on 30 April 2010 Examination Hearings held between 28 September 2010 and 20 October 2010 File Ref: PINS/H0900/429/11 ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THIS REPORT AMR Annual Monitoring Report CNDR Carlisle Northern Development Route CS Core Strategy DPD Development Plan Document EfW Energy from Waste HWRC Household Waste Recycling Centre GDCP Generic Development Control Policies Development Plan Document LLW Low Level Radioactive Wastes LLWR Low Level Waste Repository near Drigg LP Local Plan MBT Mechanical and Biological Treatment MCA Mineral Consultation Area MSA Mineral Safeguarding Area MWDF Minerals and Waste Development Framework MWDS Minerals and Waste Development Scheme NDA Nuclear Decommissioning Authority PPS Planning Policy Statement RSS Regional Spatial Strategy SA Sustainability Appraisal SCI Statement of Community Involvement SRF Solid Recovered Fuel SFRA Strategic Flood Risk Assessment VLLW Very Low Level Radioactive Wastes 2 Cumbria County Council Site Allocations Policies and Proposals Map DPD, Inspector’s Report December 2010 Non-Technical Summary This report concludes that the Site Allocations Policies and Proposals Map Development Plan Document (together with the adopted Core Strategy and Generic Development Control Policies Development Plan Documents) provides an appropriate basis for the planning of Waste and Minerals development in Cumbria over the period to 2020. The Council has sufficient evidence to support the approach taken to site identification and can show that those allocated have a reasonable chance of being developed to enable the Core Strategy to be delivered. A number of changes are needed to meet legal and statutory requirements. These can be summarised as follows: • Deletion of Hespin Wood from policy 1 with consequential changes to the text as the deliverability of the identified site is not certain; • Deletion of the Innovia, Wigton site from policy 3 and consequential changes to the text and Chapter 7 site maps as the site is within the functional floodplain and its allocation conflicts with national policy; • Reclassification of Goldmire Quarry as a First Preference site in policy 4 and consequential changes to the text to ensure consistency with the Core Strategy objective to give priority to non-inert landfill in the south of the County; • Removal of reference to Very Low Level Radioactive Wastes and the land adjacent to Sellafield from policy 5, the replacement of paragraph 3.11 by a number of new paragraphs and consequential changes to the text and Chapter 7 site maps to ensure consistency with national plan- making policy and the Core Strategy; to ensure that only sites deliverable in the short term are allocated; and to ensure commitment to an early review of this element of the Minerals and Waste Development Framework; • Reclassification of Roose sand quarry as a First Preference site in policy 6 and the addition of Roosecote as an area of search in the same policy with consequential additions and changes to the text and Chapter 7 site maps to ensure consistency with the Core Strategy objective to give priority to sand and gravel extraction in the south of the County; • The addition of new text at the end of paragraph 3.22 to explain the addition of a map showing areas licensed for coalbed methane and the extent of the deep coalfield Mineral Safeguarding Area and a new map added to Chapter 7 to achieve consistency with national policy. Most of the changes recommended in this report are based on proposals put forward by the Council in response to points raised and suggestions discussed during the public examination. The changes do not alter the thrust of the Council’s overall strategy and, in the case of that for policy 5, reinstate the adopted strategy for the management of Low and Very Low Level radioactive wastes. 3 Cumbria County Council Site Allocations Policies and Proposals Map DPD, Inspector’s Report December 2010 Introduction i. This report contains my assessment of the Cumbria County Council Site Allocations Policies and Proposals Map Development Plan Document (DPD) in terms of Section 20(5) of the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. It considers whether the DPD is compliant in legal terms and whether it is sound. Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 12 (paragraphs 4.51-4.52) makes clear that to be sound, a DPD should be justified, effective and consistent with national policy. ii. The starting point for the examination is the assumption that the local authority has submitted what it considers to be a sound plan. The basis for my examination is the submitted draft DPD (April 2010)1. However, this is the not the same as the document published for consultation in December 20092. This matter is addressed in my report. iii. My report deals with the changes that are needed to make the DPD sound and they are identified in bold in the report (RC-S or IC). All but one of these substantive changes has been proposed by the Council and they are presented in Appendix A. The substantive and consequential changes that I recommend are set out in Appendix C. None of these changes should materially alter the substance of the DPD and its policies, or undermine the sustainability appraisal and participatory processes undertaken. iv. Other changes are put forward by the Council as factual updates, corrections of minor errors or other minor amendments in the interests of clarity. These changes do not relate to soundness and I endorse the Council’s view that they improve the DPD. Generally, they are referred to in this report (RC-E) only where the local community’s understanding of the DPD to be adopted would be enhanced by doing so. All are shown in Appendix B. I am content for the Council to make any additional minor changes to page, figure, paragraph numbering and to correct any spelling errors prior to adoption. v. References in my report to documentary sources are provided in footnotes, quoting the reference number in the examination library. 1 SAP1 and Proposals Maps 2 LD163 4 Cumbria County Council Site Allocations Policies and Proposals Map DPD, Inspector’s Report December 2010 Legal Requirements 1. My examination of the compliance of the DPD with the legal requirements is summarised in the table below. I conclude that the DPD meets them all subject to the changes recommended. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS Minerals and Waste The DPD is identified within the approved MWDS Development Scheme March 2009 which sets out an expected adoption (MWDS) date of December 2010. The content of the DPD is compliant with the MWDS although the timing has slipped for the reasons set out by the Council3. Statement of Community The SCI was adopted in 2006 and consultation has Involvement (SCI) and been compliant with the requirements therein. relevant regulations Sustainability Appraisal SA has been carried out, independently verified (SA) and is adequate. Appropriate Assessment The Habitats Regulations Assessment4 concludes (AA) that the DPD is not likely to adversely affect the integrity of the designated sites, a conclusion endorsed by Natural England. National and Core Strategy The DPD complies with national and Core Strategy Policy policy except where indicated and changes are recommended. County Council Plan and Satisfactory regard has been paid to these the Community Strategies documents. of the constituent Borough and District Councils 2004 Act and Regulations The DPD complies with the Act and the (as amended) Regulations. 2. There are three issues arising from the consideration of the DPD against the legal requirements that must be met. 3. Although the Council considers that it may not have complied with Regulation 14(3)(b)5 this view is unnecessarily cautious. Together with the Chapter 7 site maps, the Proposals Maps show all the required information and are clear when viewed electronically. However, the Council acknowledges that in paper form they are difficult to read. The Council has therefore produced larger scale inserts, the areas covered being indicated on the Proposals Maps. The Regulation is thus satisfied since the more detailed paper inserts are provided purely for information purposes and are not inset maps within the meaning of the statute. I endorse changes RC-E1 and RC-E12 which make this clear. 3 ED56a 4 SAP4 5 ED56g 5 Cumbria County Council Site Allocations Policies and Proposals Map DPD, Inspector’s Report December 2010 4. The document published for the purpose of Regulation 276 was not the same as that submitted at Regulation 307. While largely a matter of presentation whereby LD163 was split up into the constituent parts required for submission at Regulation 30 the Council also deleted five sites from the DPD, changed the status of another and altered the extent of the Mineral Safeguarding Area (MSA) for gypsum. 5. Non statutory Communities and Local Government Department advice8 is that this is possible but steps have to be taken to advertise the changes, to give an opportunity for comment and to then submit those comments with the other documents necessary at the Regulation 30 stage. 6. The Council undertook a highly focussed consultation9 and published the outcome some two weeks after submission10. Those who had supported the deleted sites CA28 and CA29 at Regulation 28 stage were also given an opportunity to come to the Hearing session (session 5) when this matter was discussed.